Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:29:03 -0700, Sergio Lerner wrote: > I proposed a (what I think) is better protocol for Proof of Storage that > I call "Proof of Local storage" here > https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/proof-of-local-blockchain-storage/ Thanks so much for publishing this. It could b

[Bitcoin-development] Research on partitioning Bitcoind nodes: "Eclipse Attacks on Bitcoin’s Peer-to-Peer Network"

Hi All, There has been much discussion lately on the dev list about misbehaving peers and attacks on the P2P network. We'd like to share our research on partitioning Bitcoind nodes from the rest of the network. Eclipse Attacks on Bitcoin’s Peer-to-Peer Network Abstract: We present eclipse attacks

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

Wow, that's quite impressive. But what comes to my mind is if such an extravagant solution really need to be implemented regarding proof of storage? I mean, my idea whilst building my node was to do something along the lines of "tell me what you got" i.e get block height from the version message